| Matter of Adams v Perryman |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09219 [68 AD3d 860] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Shawn Adams, Respondent, v JoycePerryman, Appellant. |
—[*1] William E. Penny, Scarsdale, N.Y., for respondent. Kenneth Lyle Bunting, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Duffy, J.), enteredNovember 21, 2008, as, after a hearing, denied her petition to modify a prior custody order of thesame court dated June 10, 2005, awarding the father sole legal and physical custody of theparties' child and awarding her certain visitation, as to award her sole legal and physical custodyof the child.
Ordered that the order entered November 21, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change incircumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d793, 794 [2008]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality ofthe circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]). Deferenceshould be accorded the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court'scustody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in therecord (see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d at 794).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the mother failed to satisfy her burden ofdemonstrating a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody is supported by asound and substantial basis in the record. The mother "presented no evidence of parentalalienation that would justify a change in physical custody" (Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603, 604 [2009]).Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court's determination (see Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64AD3d 603 [2009]; see also Matterof Chase v Matanda-Chase, 41 AD3d 475, 476 [2007]; Matter of Bryant v Nazario,306 AD2d 529 [2003]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.